# Responsibility Gap and Diffusion in Sequential Decision-Making Mechanisms

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02582 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02582/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [A Game-Theoretic Account of Responsibility Allocation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.09129/) (2021)
- [Blameworthiness in Strategic Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.05485/) (2018)
- [Blameworthiness in Security Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.08647/) (2019)
- [Responsibility in Extensive Form Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.07637/) (2023)
- [Responsibility Gap in Collective Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06312/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Cognitive Agency Surrender: Defending Epistemic Sovereignty via Scaffolded AI Friction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.21735/) (2026)
- [Compliant with Local Controls, Collectively Discriminatory. A Governance Architecture for Multi-Agent AI in Regulated Finance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.27994/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Responsibility has long been a subject of study in law and philosophy. More recently, it became a focus of AI literature. The article investigates the computational complexity of two important properties of responsibility in collective decision-making: diffusion and gap. It shows that the sets of diffusion-free and gap-free decision-making mechanisms are Pi2-complete and Pi3-complete, respectively. At the same time, the intersection of these classes is Pi2-complete.